FHKAD attorneys Daniel T. Downey and Stephanie L. Schoolcraft secured summary judgment in a recent disability discrimination case brought by a police officer transferred to a dispatcher position. Malone v. City of Ontario, N.D.Ohio No. 1:15 CV 2456, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153349, at *1 (Nov. 4, 2016).
The Plaintiff in this case was a patrol officer with the City’s police department. After receiving several reports that the officer’s physical fitness prevented her from completing certain activities necessary to the job, e.g., getting into and out of the prone position, running short distances, and making her weapon safe, the police chief had concerns regarding her fitness for duty. Accordingly, the chief gave the officer a choice: she could either undergo a fitness for duty examination or accept a transfer to the dispatcher position. The officer chose the transfer but brought suit shortly thereafter.
In the Plaintiff’s complaint, she asserted various theories of discrimination on the basis of sex, disability, and age as well as retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. FHKAD Attorneys moved for summary judgment and the court agreed, finding that the Plaintiff could not establish that she suffered an adverse employment action. This is because she chose to be transferred to a lower paying position to avoid a fitness for duty exam, and her supervisor had a reasonable basis on which to require such exam. Id. (quoting Pena v. City of Flushing, 2016 WL 3182708, No. 15-2316, at *6 (6th Cir. June 7, 2016)). Accordingly, the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
The court also found that even if the Plaintiff could have established the prima facie case for her discrimination allegations, the City had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for requesting the Plaintiff either transfer to the dispatcher position or undergo a fitness for duty examination; namely, the City’s concerns that Plaintiff was not fit for duty. Additionally, the court found the Plaintiff could not prove the City’s stated reasons for asking Plaintiff to undergo the fitness for duty examination had not basis in fact.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact FHKAD attorneys Daniel T. Downey (ddowney@fishelhass.com) or Stephanie L. Schoolcraft (sschoolcraft@fishelhass.com).